Obama More Like Bush, Where Is Liberal Outcry

When George Bush made the recess appointments of John Bolton and several judges the left went bonkers. How dare he do that? Who does he think he is? Hell, the Senate had one member in session at times in order to keep him from making such appointments during his time in office. They did not like it because they were obstructing his appointments and he went around them. I did not care because he is allowed under the Constitution to make such appointments. But the Constitution has never really meant much to the left.

Barack Obama waited until Congress took recess to make 15 recess appointments:

Fed up with waiting, President Barack Obama announced Saturday he would bypass a vacationing Senate and name 15 people to key administration jobs, wielding for the first time the blunt political tool known as the recess appointment.

The move immediately deepened the divide between the Democratic president and Republicans in the Senate following a long, bruising fight over health care. Obama revealed his decision by blistering Republicans, accusing them of holding up nominees for months solely to try to score a political advantage on him.

“I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government,” Obama said in a statement. AP via My Way News

I do not care that he did this because it is allowed under our Constitution. What I find amazing is his rationale for doing it. He said that Republicans were obstructing his appointments for political gain and he needed to fill the positions. This is the rationale Bush used and the left went nuts but in this case, the left encouraged Obama to take a page out of the Bush playbook and do it as well.

The left did not like Bush’s recess appointments so they worked to keep them from happening:

Starting in 2007, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid prevented any further recess appointments by Bush. A compromise was worked out for the August break, and Bush did not make any recess appointments. However, no agreement was reached for the two-week Thanksgiving break in November 2007, and as a result, Reid decided to keep the Senate in session by having pro forma sessions every three days. Prior to this, there had been speculation that James Holsinger would receive a recess appointment as U.S. surgeon general. The Senate was also kept in session over the Christmas break as well as during 2008 breaks. Hence, Bush was unable to make any further recess appointments during his presidency. Wikipedia

It makes the case less worthy when the argument is that the other guy did it or that it is OK now because Republican obstruction is different than Democrat obstruction.

What is really amazing is that the Democrats still have a 59-41 advantage in the Senate and they had a 60-40, filibuster proof, majority. They could have easily gotten these guys approved if they had not wasted so much energy on the health care takeover. If getting them in was so important then it should have been done first. Considering most parts of the health care takeover do not take place for four years it seems they could have prioritized a little better.

So Obama has made the appointments and they must be approved by the end of the next session of Congress. I am willing to bet they are not approved and will be vacant seats again at the end of next year.

I know Obama claims obstruction but some of these folks had some real issues that were going to be investigated by the Senate committee. It would have been ugly, particularly for union lawyer Craig Becker who was appointed to the National Labor Relations Board.

They will have to work hard to screw things up further because these guys have until the end of next year and they are done.

Yep, Barry Obama is doing just what Bush did and he has the support of the left, those who bashed Bush for doing the exact same thing.

The left is full of hypocrites. But in their true Alinsky fashion, the ends justify the means.

Never surrender, never submit.
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.

4 Responses to “Obama More Like Bush, Where Is Liberal Outcry”

  1. Adam says:

    Where is the outcry? When Obama even appoints a quarter as many as Bush did then you can start to compare him to Bush. Obama’s already like Bush in a lot of ways. It’s the way he’s not like Bush that matter more, like accomplishing major legislation without the help of wars to make questioning the president unpatriotic. Worked well for Bush for many years…

    “But in their true Alinsky fashion, the ends justify the means.”

    Since you’re an expert on Alinsky I wonder if he talked about repeating a lie over and over until it becomes true? See, no one on my side thinks the end justifies the means in any way you think we do. But go ahead and repeat it over and over. I bet you’ll be making Alinsky proud…

    • Big Dog says:

      Adam, you said you did not care how many seats were lost you wanted health care done. That is an ends justifies the means.

      It does not matter how many, the outcry was there over a few and they were done because of Democrat obstruction.

      Where is the outcry? If Bush was usurping the Senate by making appointments then so is Obama.

      Or is a number required? Do we say that if Bush did it twice Obama can do it once and it is OK? If Bush murdered 2 people and got away with it over Democrat objection would it be OK for Obama to murder one person or if you think something is wrong then it is wrong all the time?

      Come on, if it was bad to you guys then it should be bad now. I know this is how you all see things. Look at the deficit and the debt. Obama and the Dems lost their minds when Bush had out of control spending but now Obama is spending a hell of a lot more and they all say it is OK.

      Like I wrote, what Obama did is perfectly legal just as it was when Bush did it. The left was up in arms about it then and should be now.

      And give Obama some time. He has only been in office 14 months.

      • Adam says:

        “Adam, you said you did not care how many seats were lost you wanted health care done.”

        At least this time you aren’t accusing me of justifying breaking the law to pass health care reform. You’re moving in the right direction maybe…

        “…but now Obama is spending a hell of a lot more and they all say it is OK.”

        Why do you have to repeat this lie though? Did anyone say the debt was OK? Did anyone say unemployment was OK?

        “Do we say that if Bush did it twice Obama can do it once and it is OK? … And give Obama some time. He has only been in office 14 months.”

        Yes. Obama’s at 15 after 14 months. Bush did 170 or more such appointments in his 2 terms. Get back to us when Obama makes regular use of this (which he may very well do) like Bush did.

        The only outcry I ever took part in was for the recess appointment of John Bolton to the UN. Bolton is a total loser who hates the UN and everything it stands for. It was one of the dumbest appointments Bush ever tried and it was a huge slap in the face to the UN. But who needs a UN when your job is to go to war and stay at war for as long as possible?

  2. Big Dog says:

    Bush 170, Clinton 140, Reagan 243 it is not like it is unprecedented.

    Only Democrats made it look that way.