-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
Cyan said:
You would be spot on.
That said, there's no shortage of reasons not to like Perry (and for all the 'strong economy' nonsense, the state still racked up a deficit that was as large as California's in terms of state GDP). Of course, it generally doesn't help when you execute a potentially innocent man and then blatantly cover up the follow up investigation.
RustyNails
Member
He's saying Gays are uncivilized neanderthals that must be disciplined and educated on the proper etiquette and gentlemenly ways of copulation.Salazar said:
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Salazar said:
Fricken Jon Stewart. I had a feeling he'd have to resort to some moronic form of false equivalency after repeatedly hurting Chris Wallace's feelings.
He just went on to say that not raising the debt ceiling would lead to the same apocalyptic/dystopian future as raising the debt ceiling, but ONLY relying on raising taxes like the democrats want without any entitlement cuts.
Utterly pathetic.
He just went on to say that not raising the debt ceiling would lead to the same apocalyptic/dystopian future as raising the debt ceiling, but ONLY relying on raising taxes like the democrats want without any entitlement cuts.
Utterly pathetic.
worldrunover
Member
Oblivion said:
Yeah, maybe you should stop trying to get your political information from watching the Daily Show. That clip was about futuristic gorillas throwing feces. I can't believe you're trying to parse that clip into some kind of political analysis. Christ.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58098.html
Mark Halperin apologizes for Obama gaffe
Did Obama say or do anything dickish yesterday or is this another example of the media jumping on Obama for being even ever so slightly combative?
Mark Halperin apologizes for Obama gaffe
Did Obama say or do anything dickish yesterday or is this another example of the media jumping on Obama for being even ever so slightly combative?
Invisible_Insane
Member
There's combative, but the way he kept on saying, "Good try, though," to people who asked him questions he didn't want to answer was a little dickish, I thought.Averon said:
Invisible_Insane
Member
Archive footage from yesterday: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011...imit-now-time-go-ahead-and-make-tough-choices
Senate canceling July 4 recess next week
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2011/06/senate_canceling_july_4_recess_next_week.php
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
GhaleonEB said:
No way that's true. If so that's sad. But I think it has more to do with the fact that Obama called them out yesterday.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Senate Votes to Streamline the Confirmation Process
By CARL HULSE
Published: June 29, 2011
The Senate took the rare step of relinquishing power on Wednesday, easily passing a measure that would exempt about 170 executive branch appointees from confirmation in an effort to streamline a process that has increasingly tied up the Senate and become punishing for those tapped for administration jobs.
By a vote of 79 to 20, senators approved the bipartisan bill that would allow presidents to fill cabinet agency public affairs jobs and other positions that do not involve policy making without putting appointees through what even senators acknowledge has become a cumbersome and partisan ordeal.
The Senate has always been known as a cooling saucer, said Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who heads the Rules Committee. But as of late its become a Sub-Zero freezer. Nominees of impeccable qualification and indisputable support have been frozen out of the confirmation process.
At the same time, the Senate approved, 89 to 8, a second proposal that would expedite consideration of appointees to about 250 positions on part-time boards and commissions, slicing the number of confirmable posts to 1,000 from about 1,400.
Still, Mr. Schumer and other authors of the first measure ran into resistance from senators who were reluctant to give up authority over the administration and surrender leverage they can exert to capture the White Houses attention by raising obstacles to nominations.
At the insistence of critics of the measure, the bills authors agreed to continue to subject to confirmation about a dozen cabinet agency staff members who essentially lobby Congress as well as the top financial officers at many agencies.
It is hard to surmount the turf battles and prerogatives and jurisdictional disputes, but in the end we did, said Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the top Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs panel. It is the first progress that has been made in reforming the nomination process in decades.
When John F. Kennedy was president, only about 280 executive branch positions were subject to Senate review and approval. But that number has escalated, and the action on Wednesday makes only a dent in those confirmable posts. Cabinet secretaries and their top assistants and hundreds of other staff workers in the administration would still have to clear the Senate.
Sponsors of the bill said that all the workers holding exempted positions would report to people still subject to confirmation. Decreasing the number of confirmable positions will help the Senate focus on those who truly merit serious scrutiny, they said.
Some argue we are giving up our power of advice and consent, said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut and a chief author of the bill. But I say the legislation strengthens the Senates power by freeing us up to concentrate on nominees who will actually shape national policy.
The bill was opposed by 20 mostly conservative Republicans even though it was co-sponsored by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. It must still be approved by the House, but the House would generally defer to the Senate on such an institutional matter. Only the Senate votes on confirmations.
The push to cut the confirmation workload accelerated at the beginning of the year when a group of more junior Democratic senators began clamoring for changes in the rules to reverse the proliferation of filibusters.
The bill also creates an administration working group that would report within 90 days on a single new vetting form to be filled out by nominees who do face a Senate hearing and vote. Both the administration and the Senate require nominees to provide extensive background and financial information and complaints have mounted that the requirements are duplicative.
Conservatives called the measure a mistake in a time of an expanding federal government.
Rather than look at this behemoth we have created, we are looking to make it somewhat less accountable, said Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina. I think we really have to recognize when we are treating symptoms and not really solving the problem.
But Mr. DeMint was defeated in efforts to alter the measure, including his push to continue to keep agency public affairs officials subject to confirmation. Heaven help us if these public affairs people are making policy, said Ms. Collins, who opposed Mr. DeMint. They are just the messenger.
Other posts that would no longer be voted on by the Senate include the assistant secretary for administration in the Department of Agriculture, the assistant secretary for budget and programs in the Department of Transportation and the United States treasurer.
##################
What is this? The Senate actually did something this year? Holy crap!!11!! lol
I'm surprised to see this give up some power. But happy non the less.
By CARL HULSE
Published: June 29, 2011
The Senate took the rare step of relinquishing power on Wednesday, easily passing a measure that would exempt about 170 executive branch appointees from confirmation in an effort to streamline a process that has increasingly tied up the Senate and become punishing for those tapped for administration jobs.
By a vote of 79 to 20, senators approved the bipartisan bill that would allow presidents to fill cabinet agency public affairs jobs and other positions that do not involve policy making without putting appointees through what even senators acknowledge has become a cumbersome and partisan ordeal.
The Senate has always been known as a cooling saucer, said Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who heads the Rules Committee. But as of late its become a Sub-Zero freezer. Nominees of impeccable qualification and indisputable support have been frozen out of the confirmation process.
At the same time, the Senate approved, 89 to 8, a second proposal that would expedite consideration of appointees to about 250 positions on part-time boards and commissions, slicing the number of confirmable posts to 1,000 from about 1,400.
Still, Mr. Schumer and other authors of the first measure ran into resistance from senators who were reluctant to give up authority over the administration and surrender leverage they can exert to capture the White Houses attention by raising obstacles to nominations.
At the insistence of critics of the measure, the bills authors agreed to continue to subject to confirmation about a dozen cabinet agency staff members who essentially lobby Congress as well as the top financial officers at many agencies.
It is hard to surmount the turf battles and prerogatives and jurisdictional disputes, but in the end we did, said Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the top Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs panel. It is the first progress that has been made in reforming the nomination process in decades.
When John F. Kennedy was president, only about 280 executive branch positions were subject to Senate review and approval. But that number has escalated, and the action on Wednesday makes only a dent in those confirmable posts. Cabinet secretaries and their top assistants and hundreds of other staff workers in the administration would still have to clear the Senate.
Sponsors of the bill said that all the workers holding exempted positions would report to people still subject to confirmation. Decreasing the number of confirmable positions will help the Senate focus on those who truly merit serious scrutiny, they said.
Some argue we are giving up our power of advice and consent, said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut and a chief author of the bill. But I say the legislation strengthens the Senates power by freeing us up to concentrate on nominees who will actually shape national policy.
The bill was opposed by 20 mostly conservative Republicans even though it was co-sponsored by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. It must still be approved by the House, but the House would generally defer to the Senate on such an institutional matter. Only the Senate votes on confirmations.
The push to cut the confirmation workload accelerated at the beginning of the year when a group of more junior Democratic senators began clamoring for changes in the rules to reverse the proliferation of filibusters.
The bill also creates an administration working group that would report within 90 days on a single new vetting form to be filled out by nominees who do face a Senate hearing and vote. Both the administration and the Senate require nominees to provide extensive background and financial information and complaints have mounted that the requirements are duplicative.
Conservatives called the measure a mistake in a time of an expanding federal government.
Rather than look at this behemoth we have created, we are looking to make it somewhat less accountable, said Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina. I think we really have to recognize when we are treating symptoms and not really solving the problem.
But Mr. DeMint was defeated in efforts to alter the measure, including his push to continue to keep agency public affairs officials subject to confirmation. Heaven help us if these public affairs people are making policy, said Ms. Collins, who opposed Mr. DeMint. They are just the messenger.
Other posts that would no longer be voted on by the Senate include the assistant secretary for administration in the Department of Agriculture, the assistant secretary for budget and programs in the Department of Transportation and the United States treasurer.
##################
What is this? The Senate actually did something this year? Holy crap!!11!! lol
I'm surprised to see this give up some power. But happy non the less.
RustyNails
Member
That's not being dickish, but evasive.Kosmo said:
CNN opinion piece said his "barbs" were mainly against house members.
This has more to do with house members feeling hurt over Obama chiding them. I would say Obama's tone is rightly deserved. Like a post above that mentioned futuristic gorillas throwing feces, that's a succinct description of house today. Obama comes out forcefully and all of a sudden he's the big bad meanie.
I like the new Obama, don't care about others think. Paddle those rumps Mr President. They are in need of some.
I agree. They have been taking recess breaks for years now and all of a sudden decide to cancel the most important one.mckmas8808 said:
Invisible_Insane
Member
I think he was right to take jabs at Congress. I just thought he was needlessly condescending towards the press corps; they're just doing their jobs.RustyNails said:
balladofwindfishes
Member
if the senate can't properly use their powers in a timely manner, they deserve to lose themeznark said:
balladofwindfishes said:
This reeks of "we're sick of having actual work to do, can we get back to the bicker-for-televison" please. Just terrible.
The bureaucrats are the ones who make the real decisions that affect everyday bums like you guys. These people shouldn't get a free pass. The handshake-and-nod nomination processes are what get us people like Brownie. I don't know why any of us should be cheering the senate making it easier for the executive branch to grant favors.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
eznark said:
Then again the Senate needs to do their job. And since they've agreed that they can't, at least let the President (be them DEM or REP) do it.
balladofwindfishes
Member
They're not sick of doing the workeznark said:
They never even DID the work they were suppose to do.
Stalling hundred of appointments because the president is a black democrat is just as bad as the president granting "favors"
It may even be worse, because at least now things will actually get done, rather than just having a long line of people waiting to do their job, mainly because one party despises the other party and wants nothing more than to just shut down the entire government.
GaimeGuy said:
Because this group of senators are shit-heads. They will not always be there. This change will. I'd rather these appointments be vetted and blocked than rubber stamped though. As it is, there isn't even a rubber stamp any longer.
This has nothing to do with Obama. The executive already has an inordinate amount of authority and the past two presidents (Bush especially) have worked to exponentially expand that power. It's absolutely dangerous.
Oh for fucks sake. This is racist, now?
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
It's kinda nice to know that some things I read on the internets can still surprise me.balladofwindfishes said:
mckmas8808 said:
Elizabeth Warren Appointment Dangles As Democrats Duck Recess Fight With Republicans
Republicans in Congress have called out the Democrats for a fight over recess -- but there are few signs the Democrats are going to show up.
In a bid to stop President Obama from making Senate-circumventing appointments while Congress is out -- most notably Consumer Financial Protection Bureau architect Elizabeth Warren -- House Speaker John Boehner is banning his members -- and the Senate -- from going on holiday.
For one chamber to bar the other from recess is an extraordinary step that has seldom been perpetrated in the history of Congress, yet it is easily done because the Constitution requires each chamber to consent if the other will be out for more than three days.
It's not that Boehner wants to force his side and the Senate to work while theyre not on recess. He is filling the time with pro forma sessions where a couple of members take to the floor to punch the clock every fourth day so Congress can remain in session. But lawmakers dont have to be bothered by any legislation.
Republicans in Congress have called out the Democrats for a fight over recess -- but there are few signs the Democrats are going to show up.
In a bid to stop President Obama from making Senate-circumventing appointments while Congress is out -- most notably Consumer Financial Protection Bureau architect Elizabeth Warren -- House Speaker John Boehner is banning his members -- and the Senate -- from going on holiday.
For one chamber to bar the other from recess is an extraordinary step that has seldom been perpetrated in the history of Congress, yet it is easily done because the Constitution requires each chamber to consent if the other will be out for more than three days.
It's not that Boehner wants to force his side and the Senate to work while theyre not on recess. He is filling the time with pro forma sessions where a couple of members take to the floor to punch the clock every fourth day so Congress can remain in session. But lawmakers dont have to be bothered by any legislation.
Reid is just putting lipstick on the pig.
Note they did the same thing over the last few recesses.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The freakout over Obama's cheesy jabs at republicans illustrates just how pathetic the media and GOP are, and the standard at which they hold Obama's above the fray persona. This is a guy who is generally accused of purposely sabotaging the economy and trying to kill senior citizens, yet he's apparently out of line for comparing republicans to children.
I don't remember anyone in the media accusing Bush of being "dickish" to the media during his many tense press conferences either.
I don't remember anyone in the media accusing Bush of being "dickish" to the media during his many tense press conferences either.
Invisible_Insane
Member
That last bit is definitely not true. Especially considering all of the stupid nicknames they had to tolerate.PhoenixDark said:
Invisible_Insane
Member
Since we're lighting up Somalia now (again), I suspect the next rationale to be something along the lines of, "Well, if we're giving the finger to everyone, it's not really hostile, is it?Jackson50 said:
Big Baybee
Member
Haha, he called Obama a dick on national television. Jesus Christ, the lack of respect the media has for the president is amazing.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Invisible_Insane said:
Show me an example of one then. Private complaints and public ones are quite different
Big Baybee
Member
If you can't express yourself better than calling someone a dick, you have no business being on television.Chichikov said:
worldrunover
Member
eznark said:
I think the second adjective is much more important than the first when it comes to why these appointments are being blocked.
Big Baybee
Member
Haha, I guess. But who actually does that? Ed Shultz maybe?Chichikov said:
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Along these lines, I read an article by some Yale professor the other day on the Daily Beast regarding the increasing powergrab of the executive branch.Chichikov said:
The Lawless Presidency
His solution was to set up a legal tribune.
Not sure if this is a good idea. Any thoughts?
- Status