Best
28 Comments
Post
  • #3
    !
    As much contempt as I have for the far right I have that same level of contempt for the far left. You can't just keep spending without any nod whatsoever to the deficit. A pox on both parties.

    RE-ELECT NOBODY 2014
  • #1
    !
    I say filibuster them both. The entire obama cabinet is filled with snakes and deceitful vile people. Our country is in horribly demented hands right now.
  • #10
    Managing partner of U.S. Government Relations Intl.
    !
    Of course I’m trying to influence opinion; otherwise I would not have written the op-ed. I suppose being a lobbyist and a conservative do influence my writing. In the end, however, I’m certainly more interested in hearing cogent complimentary or contrary comments of substance about the op-ed point of view, and less about my motives, lobbyists, and conservatives. But if the latter is your thing, then go for it.
  • #11
    !
    If you don't want to understand the motives of the writer, then what validity is in your opinions?

    As for jack lew I agree...I don't think anyone here wants to see that failure come through....but chuck hagel can be as disatarous as lew.
  • #14
    Managing partner of U.S. Government Relations Intl.
    !
    I have many friends who are Democrats – some are even raving liberals, but when they’re making an argument I don’t automatically leap to their motives; I try to understand their argument and if I disagree, I present my points based on my understanding of the topic. Whether my friend is a lobbyist, plumber, cab driver, conservative or liberal rarely enters the debate. Again… that’s me.
  • #17
    !
    @JeffreyLTaylor - If Lew's ideas and policies are as unpopular as you say, why would the Senate need a filibuster? It seems to me that they have ample reason to simply not confirm his nomination the old fashioned way: via a majority "no" vote. Why assume that the filibuster is now the weapon of choice?
  • #19
    Managing partner of U.S. Government Relations Intl.
    !
    Your point is well-taken, but the Senate exists on historical and traditional rules and precedents and that is why it is inadvisable to continually change the rules of the U.S. Senate simply to serve your own political needs. There was once a time when a candidate for a cabinet post would win or lose based on a majority vote of the 100 senators. When President Bush was president and the Democrats were in the minority, Democrats decided that it was time to filibuster cabinet officials, subcabinet officials, Ambassadors, and judges. Before that time, the filibuster in such circumstances was rarely, if ever, used. But the Democrats, under the leadership of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, decided that this was a precedent worth being set. It is as if Senator Daschle never envisioned a Democratic president like President Obama with a GOP minority in the Senate. So today, such situations are now subject to a filibuster thanks to Daschle’s precedent.

    Senator Harry Reid has set a number of these precedents. He expanded the rules of ‘reconciliation’ to ram through Obamacare. Again, it is as if Harry Reid can’t see into the future when there will be a Republican president and Republican Senate majority. Now that Reid has expanded reconciliation – to include almost anything under the sun – liberal groups are nervous about a future GOP majority when the GOP can use the Reid Reconciliation Rule to pass any conservative idea through the Senate. It was a bad precedent. Good for Democrats and Obamacare, but bad for future policies.

    Lastly, Harry Reid has ruled the Senate with an iron fist. He does not allow minority amendments. The term is ‘he fills the tree’; only his amendments are found in order. In such cases, the filibuster is the tool of last resort for the minority. The minority has a role in the Senate; whether it is a Democratic minority or Republican minority. In the 2000s, Democrats did everything to stop President Bush’s agenda as the political opposition. Today, Republicans are in the minority and they are the political opposition. I’m sure no one is suggesting that using the filibuster is good when Democrats use it and bad when Republicans use it.

    When one changes the rules of the Senate to suit one’s own political needs, the precedent is set for the future when your own ox might be gored by setting that precedent.
  • #20
    !
    @JeffreyLTaylor - Thanks for the civics lesson, but my question stands: why would a filibuster be necessary to prevent the nomination of someone of whom everyone apparently disapproves? You call it a weapon of last resort, so why would it be used in this case? Do you think the Democrats will
  • R Load more replies

  • #18
    !
    Actually, since he was re-elected and by law he makes the chooses the people to be confirmed for the appointment to his cabinet, there is a very good reason to let an Obama man do the job. It's called democracy. If you don't like it you can move to a different country that practices a different form of government. You want the minority to dictate to the majority, I'd suggest Iraq but it's 12 years to late for that.
  • #22
    !
    @frigginhell move to a different country,more like when you vote it gives you the right to complain just as all dems have when a conserv is involved. just another right of living in a free country,for now.

    now if you want to take away the right of voting citizens to have a say you might take your own advise being that is not free thinking.
  • #25
    !
    @tomincali Obama chooses who he appoints. It then goes to congress for approval. Congress does not get to pick and choose both. That's not how it works. If they continue to reject everyone he puts in front of them it will do nothing to help this country. The partisan gridlock has to stop and the obstructionist policies need to end. It's to the point you can't even tell if a nominee is good or bad because they just attack for no good reason to be seen attacking. They're undermining the legitimacy of the system. The absoloute only reason the confirmed Kerry so quickly was because they thought they had a chance to pick up a seat in the senate. It had nothing to do with the job the good of this country or their own opinions of him, which have been made well known since he ran against bush. It had everything to do with partisan politics and seeing a chance to get ahead of the other guys. People want to blame Obama for destroying the constitution and this country. Blame the people who are working the system to the point it's breaking for no reason aside from pettty partisan pandering and bickering.
  • #26
    !
    Watch as Congress will fillbuster Chuck Hagel, however he will nominate James O. Brennan, the leader of USA's illegal and unconstitutional drone war. Who needs rule of law or right to jury when Obama can just pick and choose which people he can assassinate with drone strikes. This is the America we live in. Drones are coming to America. If anyone speaks out against the government you will get killed by drones.
  • #13
    !
    Personally I think this is good evidence that Harry Reid made a mistake in not pushing filibuster reform through in January. This is the GOP's idea of filibuster compromise. The GOP have filibustered everything in sight and will continue to do so. They can't win the battle of ideas. They have to resort to filibusters, gerrymandering and voter suppression to impose their ideas on a population that doesn't agree with them. Fortunately as Lindsay Graham said they aren't generating enough angry old white guys to remain viable.
  • #9
    !
    If Lew is so bad that not even Democrats voted for his budget, why do Republicans need to stonewall his nomination with a filibuster instead of depending on his nomination being voted down?
  • #8
    !
    I can't help noticing that this was written by a lobbyist, a conservative lobbyist.

    Could there be some chance that he's trying to influence opinion for the benefit of his clients?

    The argument he made for not opposing Hagel, adult supervision, is also applicable to the SecTreas. It's not like he had the ability to go off on his own against the Pres's wishes.

    This man's article makes no logical sense, but is a good example of a 'straw man' fallacy.
  • #5
    !
    My principal criterion for Treasury Secretary is that he/she have no previous employment with Goldman Sachs. Mr Lew, at least, restricted his private sector experience to CitiBank.
Post