Morning Must Reads: Workaround

“Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays. Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an army uniform, air force uniform, and me in my suit. They can make toys of me and my vehicle, especially for the holidays and Christmas for the kids.”

—————————————–

“Over 14 million children live in poverty in the United States. They need a hero this holiday season and here to answer the call of duty is the G.I. JOE brand from Hasbro (NYSE: HAS).”

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/suffer-the-little-children/

“National Democrats seem hyper aware of (and quick to react to) Romney’s every movement”
.
Can’t be because they’re ‘scurred’.

How many more Obama nominees are stalled by Senate Republicans’ holds and filibusters? More than 100? More than 200? 18 months into this administration?

How come we don’t hear anything about REPUBLICAN obstructionism (just “Congressional inaction”)? Adam? Anybody? Bueller?

“The policeman said ‘mind that hole, that’s where the bomb was’. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don’t remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag,”

- Bruce Lait, 7/7 survivor

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/memory-holes-in-the-floor/

Maybe because the Democratic majority in the Senate held up even more GWB nominees. Of course Democrats don’t like to remember facts that don’t fit their ideology.

3xfire3 really?

Democrats say the secret hold has never been used — or abused — as much as it has been since Obama was sworn in. At a comparable time in 2002 when George W. Bush was president and Congress left for its Memorial Day recess, only 13 nominations had been pending in the Senate for more than two days. This Memorial Day, 120 of Obama’s nominees awaited confirmation, and most were held up anonymously. The nominees who have gotten confirmed have had to wait on average more than 100 days after winning approval in committee.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127368817&ft=1&f=1003

Were Republicans really intending to “fight” Berwick’s nomination, or just obstruct and delay as is their wont?

Thought You Would Like To Know.
.
According to the latest Gallup Poll Obama’s Job Approval Rating has fallen to 38% among Independents.
.
Job approval rating by Independents
.
July, 2009……….56%
.
July, 2010……….38%
.
Also according to the Real Clear Politics average of leading Polls
.
Obama’s Disapproval Rating is now higher than his Approval Rating.
.
Feb, 2009…..Approval Rating…65.5%…..
Disapproval Rating…..25.5%
.
July, 2010….Approval Rating…46%………
Disapproval Rating…..46.3%
.
The Chosen One continues to sink.

Got a cite for that, 3xfire3? You’re wrong, of course. Just take judicial appointments… “Members of both parties have used parliamentary procedures in recent years to hold up nominations. But congressional records show an escalation in the first 18 months of the Obama administration.

Obama’s nominees for federal circuit judges are waiting an average of 116 days for confirmation after winning committee approval, more than four times as long as those during a similar period of Bush’s presidency.”

(http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/06/22/senators_want_to_end_secret_holds_that_let_nominees_languish/)

Thx, jsfox. There’s them damn facts and their liberal bias again.

Maybe because the Democratic majority in the Senate held up even more GWB nominees.
.
You’re either a liar or don’t know what the h3ll you’re talking about.

The Obama White House struggled to get even the highest level officials in place; it took until the end of April 2009 for the president to get all 15 of his Cabinet secretaries confirmed. Past presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush all filled their Cabinets at least one month faster
.
CAP found Senate delays contributed significantly to Obama’s difficulty filling political positions. The Senate took an average of 60.8 days to confirm Obama’s nominees in the first year, compared to 57.9 days for George W. Bush, 48.9 for Clinton and 51.5 for George H.W. Bush. The gap between the number of nominations and number of confirmations after one year was larger for Obama than for any other administration analyzed.
.
After a year in office, Obama had submitted 326 nominations. The Senate had confirmed 262 of them, leaving 64 pending. At the end of George W. Bush’s first year, there were 46 nominations pending; there were only 29 in limbo at the close of Clinton’s first year.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0410/042110e1.htm
.
Of course Democrats don’t like to remember facts that don’t fit their ideology.
.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

What is with this juvenile GOP cliche of calling the President “The Chosen One”? The rest of us understand how elections work.

I thought you’s like to know this puts him on par with both Reagan and Clinton in his first 18 months.

To say these polls are more than meaningless this far out is an understatement.

You’re right – he’s a failed president. Let’s just rush out and support Romney or Hucklaberry or somebody…they’ve got the REAL answers!

What did I miss?

Combat Bible!

Vultures gathering in West Virginia.

“Top GOP strategists are plotting ways to force WV to hold a special election this year, in hopes of giving the party a better chance to pick off the seat of the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), according to several party sources.

The RNC and the WV GOP are exploring ways to bring a lawsuit that would force the Mountaineer State to hold an election earlier than planned, the sources said. That could be the best option for the GOP, which believes it can win Byrd’s seat in this favorable political climate.”

And yes, he’s a Democratic candidate..not that you can easily tell by the ad or his website.

3x, you should also know…
.
“Overall, please tell me whether you approve, disapprove, or neither approve nor disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their jobs.”
.
Approve 32%
Disapprove 65%
Neither 2%
Unsure 1%

Profile of a lobbying powerhouse.

“In other words, a large part of what the Chamber sells is political cover. For multibillion-dollar insurers, drug makers, and medical device manufacturers who are too smart and image conscious to make public attacks of their own, the Chamber of Commerce is a friend who will do the dirty work. “I want to give them all the deniability they need,” says [Chamber president and CEO Thomas] Donohue. That deniability is evidently worth a lot. According to a January article in the National Journal, six insurers alone—Aetna, Cigna, Humana, Kaiser Foundation Health Plans, UnitedHealth Group, and Wellpoint—pumped up to $20 million into the Chamber last year.”

Media critique for today.

“Note to Ahrens and the Post: Everyone has a point-of-view — sources, readers and even, heaven help us, reporters. Everyone but you seems to get that so spare us the charade of your virginal ‘objectivity.’”

“If Obama Weren’t Black He’d Be a Tour Guide in Honolulu”
.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007060045

Your Sunday morning fact check, DeMint edition.

“SEN. JIM DEMINT: The president has refused to secure our border. And as others have said, uh, he is holding border security hostage to his political agenda…

PolitiFact: President Obama Has Increased Overall Border Security Funding, And GOP Talking Point Is ‘False.’”

When did lies stop politicians though?

The Other Klein outlines the Stimulus/Deficit debate.

“To put the stimulus in context, $200 billion in further spending would amount to 1.5 percent of our debt. Say what you will about it, but stimulus is not what created the problem, and given that the real issue is the speed with which debt is projected to accumulate in the future, forgoing it is not part of the solution.”

The Republicans can fight whomever they want, as intended. Berwick might well be worth challenging, I have no idea.
Yet, the Hill toppers have sounded like boys crying wolf.

If Flush were black he’d be a pill-popping old man talking to himself in a barbershop. (Wait, what?)

Thanks grape.
Why is it always one or the other? It’s stimulus spending or debt. That’s it, by official decree, no exemptions.
Discretionary spending casts a big net in a big pool. There’s lots of variables. Can’t these guys figure how to find $200 billion in a way, that our esteemed can all agree, will not negatively impact either?

grape, Sowers may be campaigning as a Democrat but his Combat Bible ad is ‘code word’ for ‘evangalicals’ to place their candidates in office however they can, whether it be through the traditional Repubs, Tea Party candidates or conservative Dems. This article in dailykos yesterday asserts they are on the move and they are doing so ‘stealthily’:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/6/881949/-Bachmann-update:-what-keeps-me-up-at-night-is…

“Beliefs” are more and more trumping FACTS, unfortunately.

Sowers may be campaigning as a Democrat but his Combat Bible ad is ‘code word’ for ‘evangalicals’ to place their candidates in office however they can…
.
That, or he’s a regular church-goer who’s a candidate in Limbaugh-country Missouri. What’s more interesting to me is that, in a lot of the ads I’ve run across, no one is touting their party affiliation, length of incumbency if applicable.
.
It’s like us regular Joes want to hit a ‘Reset’ button on the government.

Thanks grape for all your informative links!

Why is it always one or the other?
.
It’s because policy discussions have to be phrased in such a way that they can be easily presented to whoever is in your audience. Polarization sells better.

I’m fairly sure discretionary spending on the Federal level is diddly compared to the institutionalized spending engines powering the debt.
-
Okay, 1.5%. Find it somewhere. If you bought a brand new car at $20,000 and someone told you to go into it and toss $300 worth of something out of it what would it be? Spare tire and jack? Is your Triple A paid up? CD Player? No more tunes. Both headlights? Brake and gas pedal? The paint on a quarter panel? The airbag activation sensor? Sure, cup holders and floor mats. Might hurt the resale value it the interior gets trashed without the protection I guess. Roof rack? The holes (or adhesive marks) left behind won’t look great.
-
What stupid piece of crap costing $300 would you rip out of an existing brand new car to find 1.5%? Now scale that up to $200 billion and there’s your answer.

Grape @ 7.3:

“That, or he’s a regular church-goer who’s a candidate in Limbaugh-country Missouri. What’s more interesting to me is that, in a lot of the ads I’ve run across, no one is touting their party affiliation, length of incumbency if applicable.
.
It’s like us regular Joes want to hit a ‘Reset’ button on the government.”

You’re right, of course Sowers may be what he says he is, and yes, I think a lot of regular “Joes” want to hit a ‘Reset’ button on the government, most citizens are po’d about what’s happened in the US, but with falsehoods like DeMints in post 11 they don’t know who to be mad at so many populists are believing these sordid of narratives.

I’m curious too as to why many are not touting their party affiliation. Is it because very few want to be associated with the negatives of D’s and R’s or because minority parties very rarely place their candidates in office? And once the mid-term elections are over something new will emerge?

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/07/07/morning-must-reads-workaround/#comment-179421#ixzz0t0vyJ1Vl

Maybe because the Democratic majority in the Senate held up even more GWB nominees. Of course Democrats don’t like to remember facts that don’t fit their ideology.
.
No, we don’t like to remember easily-disproven lies that don’t fit reality.
.
There are two choices here — either (1) you’re a liar, or (2) you get your news from people who are lying to you, and you don’t care. Which is it, 3x?

What is with this juvenile GOP cliche of calling the President “The Chosen One”? The rest of us understand how elections work.
.
For the right wing, Bush had a mandate because he lost the popular vote, had his campaign send Republicans down to Florida to browbeat local elections boards in the Brooks Brothers Riot, and then got Republican appointees to give him the election in Bush v. Gore.
.
For the right wing, Obama is an illegitimate president because he crushed McCain in both the popular and electoral college vote.
.
Or something. It’s beyond reasoning.

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2001/spring_governance_loomis.aspx
.
This is a little older, but still relevant in my opinion.
.

“Still, headlines, assumptions, and conventional wisdom can be wrong, to a greater or lesser extent. We might do well to examine the data on confirmations. Do Senate confirmations take longer than they used to, especially in the modern era? Are more nominations withdrawn or returned to the executive?

Second, we might well ask how Senate processes might be altered in a partisan, individualistic era, especially when the upper chamber, unlike the rule-dominated House, usually operates through the mechanism of unanimous consent—that is, a single senator’s objection can delay, if not stop, the normal legislative process. Even if we find that the conventional wisdom is accurate and that presidential appointments often run into a congressional roadblock, there may be little that can be done within the legislative branch. Indeed, Christopher Deering’s assessment of Senate confirmation politics, circa 1986, bears repeating: “The relationship between the executive and legislative branches…remains essentially political…. The Senate’s role in the review of executive personnel is but one example of that relationship. The Senate’s role in the confirmation process was designed not to eliminate politics but to make possible the use of politics as a safeguard…a protection against tyranny.” Circa the year 2000, one might well argue that more is going on than “protection against tyranny,” but exactly what remains open to question.

.
Now the question is asked, is it taking longer than ever to get Obama nominations through the process? Is there a great difference in these same numbers? Or is the question, has President Obama appointed more controversial nominees which in turn elicits the partisan tactics by Republicans?
.
Obama has proven without a shadow of a doubt he will appoint nominees during the recess who are and have been proven to be radicals within their respective fields. Perhaps the pubic’s outrage should be pointed directly at this President, and told “we do not want your controversial nominees”.

If they were held up for months by Republicans, if the GOP offered pointed questions, and if they were then barely confirmed on party line votes, you might have a point. But they weren’t.
.
Most of these held-up nominees are either the victim of (1) nameless senators placing a blind hold or (2) named senators placing a hold for reasons that have nothing to do with the candidate, and most of them — once the hold is magically lifted — are then confirmed by 70-90 vote margins.
.
Here’s a sample from last year:
.

Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) has placed a “hold” on Robert Perciasepe’s nomination to be deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, demanding that the EPA re-analyze a controversial climate bill.
.
Voinovich announced the hold — a common practice for minority-party senators seeking leverage over a Cabinet department — in a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.
.
He said he had no objections to Perciasepe, the chief operating officer of the Audubon Society. But he wants the EPA to alter its analysis of a bill, aiming to lower greenhouse-gas emissions, that passed the House in June.

.
Got it? The candidate himself wasn’t a problem.
.
Or this:
.

Of the 200 or so Obama nominations pending, some 75 have gotten through committee but were being held up for various reasons in the Senate, administration officials and Congressional staff members said. During their last gasps of official business after the health care vote on Thursday morning, senators cleared 35 nominees by unanimous consent — far short of the 60 that administration officials had been hoping to get through by the end of the year.
.
One of those finally approved was Miriam Sapiro, who had become the Obama administration’s prime example of stalled nominations since being chosen in April to be a deputy United States trade representative. Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, put a hold on the confirmation of Ms. Sapiro, an Internet policy consultant, to try to pressure the trade representative’s office to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization against Canada over a law that bans cigarettes with candy flavors.

.
And on and on and on. Republican Senators don’t have real reasons for blocking these candidates, they just want to drag their feet and hamstring the government. How patriotic.

From Washington Monthly, a prime example of how the Senate GOP works:
.

Nearly seven months ago, President Obama nominated Judge Barbara Milano Keenan to serve on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Her record and qualifications were beyond reproach, and she enjoyed the enthusiastic support of her home-state’s senators, Virginia’s Jim Webb (D) and Mark Warner (D).
.
Her nomination was considered nearly six months ago by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which approved Keenan unanimously — not a single Republican raised an objection. If ever there was going to be an Obama judicial nominee who deserved to be quickly and easily confirmed, Keenan fit the bill.
.
And yet, the Senate Republican caucus is the Senate Republican caucus. Keenan’s nomination was delayed, then, because of a GOP filibuster. Why? No one has the foggiest idea. It’s apparently just habitual — Republicans try to block judicial nominees just for the sake of trying to block judicial nominees.
.
This morning, the Senate held a cloture vote to end the Republican filibuster on Keenan. The vote was 99 to 0.

.
Got it? No objections voiced at her confirmation hearing, which she sailed through with unanimous support. And then … months of stalling on her, for no reason. Followed by a 99-0 vote to confirm.
.
They have no reasons. They only have politics.
.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_03/022664.php

dog @ 3.7 said “pubic’s outrage” … Freudian slip ??, because that pretty much describes most of the people who are outraged

And another:
.

President Obama nominated Lael Brainard to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury for international affairs, and Senate confirmation was expected to be pretty easy. Her background and qualifications are impeccable, and Brainard was likely to get bipartisan support. Given the importance of having competent Treasury Department officials in place during a global economic crisis, it made sense to have the Senate move quickly on the nomination.
.
That didn’t happen. Brainard was nominated in March 2009. Last night, 13 months after receiving the nomination, the Senate voted to end obstructionist tactics and allow senators to vote up or down on Brainard’s nomination. The cloture vote was 84 to 10.
.
With such broad bipartisan support, why did it take more than a year for the Senate to bring Brainard’s nomination to the floor? Because Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) had a hold on the nomination.

.
Kyl’s reason for the thirteen-month hold? He didn’t think the administration was doing enough to combat internet gambling.
.
This was no radical, either:
.

Brainard, a highly qualified expert in international economics, is a devoted public servant who has spent most of her career serving the American people. She previously served with distinction as: Deputy National Economic Advisor for President Bill Clinton; Vice President and Founding Director of the Brookings Institution’s Global Economy and Development Program; Associate Professor of Applied Economics at MIT Sloan School; a White House Fellow; and a National Science Foundation Fellow.

Brainard is supported by: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, U.S. Council on International Business, Business Council for International Understanding, Council of the Americas, Coalition of Services Industries, Emergency Committee for American Trade, National Foreign Trade Council, National Association of Manufacturers.

.
Again: They have no reasons. They only have politics.
.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023420.php

I had actually written to the President suggesting he appoint Don Berwick to either Secretary of Health or Surgeon General. He is probably one of the most knowledgeable people in healthcare and knows where there are huge opportunites for greater efficiencies and cost reductions. There is absolutely nothing that should stand in the way of his appointment. Of course the obstructionist team of McConnell, Boehner and Cantor would oppose anyone, regardless of worth just to defeat the President. Their allegiance is to party before country and SELF before party. A worthless lot.

As I have said many times before.
.
Figures Don’t Lie, but Liars use figures.
.
I notice you liberals only want to discuss blocked appointments in the first 18 months of Bush’s Presidency. If you look at the blocked appointees when the Democrats gained control of Congress, The blocked appointments were by the hundreds.
Many were appointments to the Federal courts.
.
By picking and choosing the data you want to use to prove your points, you are indeed acting as liars.

We’re using the first 18 months of the presidency as a comparison point between Obama and Bush because (1) that’s all we have to go on for Obama and (2) that’s when the vast majority of presidential appointments happen, at the very start of a new administration.
.
If you look at the blocked appointees when the Democrats gained control of Congress, The blocked appointments were by the hundreds.
Many were appointments to the Federal courts.
.
There were 27 court nominees held up. Where are the other “hundreds” of nominees that you claim the Democrats held up in 2007 and 2008? Name them.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies#List_of_stalled.2C_blocked_or_filibustered_nominees

Also, 3x, the first eighteen months are entirely comparable — because in both periods, the Senate was controlled by the same party as the president. That’s apples to apples, chump.
.
As I have said many times before.
.
Figures Don’t Lie, but Liars use figures.
.
Says the man who lied that Bush had more nominees held up than Obama has.

WOw, are you one of his Czars? Do you get to call him Barry too? I am truly impressed.
.
Oh, and do you have any citations to back up your claim he is probably one of the most knowledgeable people in healthcare and knows where there are huge oppotunites (sp) for greater efficiencies and cost reductions”.
.
I mean while you give someone such a glowing recommendation like that to the President, could you also provide us with your sourced links to prove what you say is true?

.
Not mentioned in article about Issa is his weeping regret that Ahnold usurping him as a gubenatorial candidate in CA after he financed the recall of Gray Davis so he could run. Check about 7:30 min. on the video.
.
Issa is about Issa.

WOw, are you one of his Czars?
.
Ah, so you’re one of those idiots who gets worked up over the czar thing.
.
I’m sure you were furious when George W. Bush did this, as he had more czars than Obama has.
.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_czars_did_President_George_W_Bush_appoint

I think we should recess appoint grape_crush as the official MMR person
.

(late reply, sorry, couldn’t hang yesterday…)
.
Okay, 1.5%. Find it somewhere.
.
As I’ve linked to before- Slate’s Kaplan gives a clear “somewhere” (link):
.
$382 billion (of our discretionary Defense Budget) consists (mostly) of weapons systems—combatant ships, fighter jets, submarines, heavy armored vehicles
.
According to wiki’s entry on “Military Budget of the US”, we had 23 individual weapons programs that cost over $1 billion each in FY09.
.
Seeing as China spends about 10% of what we spend on their military budget, Iran less-than 1%, and the Taliban’s most lethal weapon is fertilizer bombs, perhaps this is somewhere to look.
.
How about a temporary halt to weapons R + D and new weapons production?
.
And if memory serves, we spend close to $200 billion per year on “overseas contingency operations” -fighting the Iraq / Afghanistan wars.