News From The World Of Politics

Obama Won’t Play Nice At Recess
When Barack Obama was a Senator he was part of the minority party and that party, rather than give an up or down vote on Bush nominees, filibustered them. When John Bolton was nominated to the UN, Obama and the Democrats worked to defame the man and then filibustered his nomination. George Bush appointed him during the Congressional recess.

Barack Obama said that Bolton was damaged goods which was a Democrat theme. The idea being that any appointee not confirmed by the Senate was damaged (the DU agreed with this). Now that Republicans have played the same game with Obama nominees (some Democrats joined the Republicans) Obama is talking about making recess appointments to key positions. Verum Serum

So will these appointments be “damaged goods?”

Roland Martin of CNN has suggested that Barack Obama go gangsta on the Republicans with regard to the recess appointments. The funny thing about this is that Martin completely ignores Obama’s history of doing the very thing Martin wants him to go gangsta on. Obama seems oblivious as well:

If the Senate does not act — and I made this very clear — if the Senate does not act to confirm these nominees, I will consider making several recess appointments during the upcoming recess, because we can’t afford to allow politics to stand in the way of a well-functioning government.”

It was perfectly OK for Obama to allow politics to stand in the way of a well functioning government when he and his fellow Democrats were the ones doing it.

I Wonder How They Would Feel If Someone Tracked Obama By Cell Phone
The Obama administration is arguing that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to their location if they use cell phones (which can locate the proximity of the user, even if it is not actively being used for a call).

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their–or at least their cell phones’–whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that “a customer’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records” that show where a mobile device placed and received calls. CNET

It seems to me that Obama was concerned about phone records being obtained by the Bush administration. When Obama took the Bush administration position and voted not to hold the companies responsible for honoring the request, Keith Olberman talked about how courageous it was. He talked about Bush as if he were Hitler over the very same issue.

But I digress. Should the police be able to obtain this information without a warrant that demonstrates probable cause? Evidently the Obama administration thinks so.

Budget Freeze In New Jersey Sends Chills Up Democrat’s Spines
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has ruffled the feathers of Democrats by freezing the state budget and cutting the budget in areas where money has been abused and where excesses exist. Christie promised to make New Jersey more fiscally responsible and the Democrats are not happy about that.

They are upset that he is doing this by executive order rather than the legislative process (he declared an emergency, not wanting to let one go to waste). The legislative process under the Democrats there is what caused the problem.

Let’s see how New Jersey does and then decide if Christie is doing the right thing. At least he is trying to get his arms around the out of control spending, something that has not happened in the past.

I bet New Jersey will see better days in the future.

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

6 Responses to “News From The World Of Politics”

  1. Adam says:

    “Obama Won’t Play Nice At Recess”

    I’m not sure the Democrats ever held up appointments like the Republicans have. The GOP is making an art form out of it though a bunch were finally released just recently.

    Thinking back to Bolton it was an insane move. The man is a maniac. He hates the United Nations and any non-military piece of foreign policy. Can you still not see why the Democrats opposed him representing the country at the United Nations?

    “Budget Freeze In New Jersey Sends Chills Up Democrat’s Spines”

    Many states are required constitutionally to balance the budget except in extreme cases. Remember Mike Huckabee bragging that he balanced Arkansas’ budget? Good work, Huckster. You did your job.

    • Darrel says:

      ADAM: “I’m not sure the Democrats ever held up appointments like the Republicans have.”>>

      DAR
      They haven’t. Just like they haven’t abused the filibuster as the republicans are doing now. Note:

      “Fifty four filibusters when Democrats were in the minority at that time. Then when the Republicans became the minority in 2007…boing… one hundred and twelve filibusters.

      Republicans now have a defacto standing filibuster on practically everything. They’ve made so that passing anything in the Senate requires sixty votes, a super majority every time. This situation has never existed before. This was not the situation in any previous Congress ever…

      This really has never happened before in the history of the U.S. Senate. When Republicans were mad about Democratic filibusters in 2005 and they threatened to kill the filibuster all together, Democrats were doing nothing anywhere near as extreme as what is being done now.”

      Maddow transcript.

      • Big Dog says:

        Of course Rachel Mad-cow is wrong. The filibuster is a legal procedure that is allowed under the rules. The cloture of anything requires 60 votes and the end of a filibuster requires 60 votes. And this is not a super majority as Mad-cow claims (a super majority is 67 which is what USED to be required to end a filibuster until the rules were changed to 60. You can thank Byrd who did this in 1975. When it was 67 they used it less).

        Anyone is allowed to use the procedure and the Democrats used it to block judicial nominees they considered too extreme (ever notice a far left loony is never considered extreme) instead of giving the up or down vote.

        Dems were warned that failure to allow the up or down would hurt them if they were ever in the majority and now it is.

        It is also a strategic plan. Since Dems only have 60 (until Brown won) then a filibuster forced ALL of them to vote for the legislation even if it was unpopular in their home states. This kept Harry Reid from protecting some Democrats by allowing them to vote NO and telling the folks back home they voted in their interest when they did not really care about their interest. This forces all of them to vote with the party.

        We see how it turned out for Landrieu and Nelson and it will be so for others who were forced, via the filibuster, to vote with their party instead of their constituents. I say force the rat bast*rds to vote with their party and let them feel the wrath at home.

        Dems have themselves to blame

        There is no doubt that the Democrats would have used it many more times but the nuclear option hit the table and it calmed things down.

        And remember Dick Durbin, who wants to now end the filibuster, said this when his party was the minority:

        The filibuster, which requires that 60 Senators come together to resolve the most controversial issues, that rule in the Senate, forces compromise. It forces the Republicans to reach across the aisle and bring in some Democrats when they have very controversial legislation or controversial nominees. It forces bipartisanship–something that tells us, at the end of the day, we will have more moderate men and women who will serve us in the judiciary. Those who would attack and destroy the institution of the filibuster are attacking the very force within the Senate that creates compromise and bipartisanship.

        Those who are forcing this nuclear option on the Senate are not just breaking the rules to win, but they want to break the rules to win every time.

        It was OK with you libs then because it was against Bush and the Republicans. Now it is an interference. If they end the filibuster we should get rid of all Dems in the next election and if that does not work then we should all march to DC and remove them by force. Enough is enough.

        And the average was 52 filibusters per Congress during the Bush years which is far more than 54. Democrats used it just as much or threatened to use it (a major distinction because the threat can end debate) so I see no difference except now that the Dems are in charge they do not like it.

        Which just shows that everyone hates the filibuster until it is their turn to use it…

  2. Big Dog says:

    Of course you would not think so but the Dems were just as obstructionist. If they did not like Bolton then give a no vote and go on.

    If they are required to balance the budget then Christie is following the Constitution. Huckabee? He has been out of office how long now? Was it balanced when he was there?

    • Adam says:

      “If they did not like Bolton then give a no vote and go on.”

      Well, obviously Bolton would have been confirmed but they felt it was bad enough to make Bush do it without them. He was as bad as the Democrats thought he was in the end as well.

      “He has been out of office how long now?”

      He’s been out of office since his term limits were up in 2006. I believe he did OK on the budget and didn’t have too much trouble. He has bragged that he balanced the budget but he did so because he’s required by law.

      • Big Dog says:

        I agree, it is of little importance to brag about doing something you are required to do by law. It is like bragging that you went the speed limit.

        However, if the Governors before him did not do so and he had a problem that he fixed by balancing the budget then he has a legitimate claim.

        I don’t know if that is the case but if so then he has reason to brag because he would have fixed a problem.