Obama to bypass the Senate and Appoint Labor Activist Craig Becker to th NLRB

• believer

  

  CenterBHSFan wrote:QFT!
  
  I've always said he had a bunch of guttersnipes working for him.

  Chicago is full of 'em.
• jhay78

  

  IggyPride00 wrote: Is anyone else amazed at the way Obama's presidency has risen from the dead (Hannity does call him the Messiah) the way it has?
  
  Scott Brown was supposed to be the 41st vote to kill off the Obama agenda, and instead all it has done is embolden him.
  
  Apathetic Democrats are now fired up and campaign contributions are pouring in now that HCR has passed.
  
  Could the anti-Obama momentum have peaked on the night Scott Brown won? Democrats are not depressed anymore, and off year elections are all about turnout. If he keeps giving liberals victories and gets them fired up to turn out this might not be the whitewash it would have had HCR not passed.
  
  I have been reading about how the White House likes the feeling right now having passed major legislation and defeated a determined opponent. They are now not scared to take them on again.
  
  What kind of damage can BHO do in another 8 months before elections with the wind at his back?

  Obama is scoring legislative and policy victories, but that has nothing to do with the 2010 and 2012 elections.
  
  The last few times Americans took to the polls, they voted in:
  
  1. Republican governor in Virginia (voted for Obama in '08)
  
  2. Republican governor in NJ (heavy blue state, also for Obama in '08)
  
  3. Republican Scott Brown- Sen in Mass (where Dems outnumber Republicans 3 to 1), in Ted Kennedy's (sorry, the people's) seat
  
  Obama has momentum because Americans haven't voted since Jan. 21st.
• fish82

  

  Today's snortfest, kids!
  
  NY Times - 2006
  

  It is disturbing that President Bush has exhibited a grandiose vision of executive power that leaves little room for public debate, the concerns of the minority party or the supervisory powers of the courts. But it is just plain baffling to watch him take the same regal attitude toward a Congress in which his party holds solid majorities in both houses.
  
  Seizing the opportunity presented by the Congressional holiday break, Mr. Bush announced 17 recess appointments -- a constitutional gimmick that allows a president to appoint someone when Congress is in recess to a job that normally requires Senate approval. The appointee serves until the next round of Congressional elections.

  
  NY Times - 2010
  

  WASHINGTON — President Obama, making a muscular show of his executive authority just one day after Congress left for spring recess, said Saturday that he would bypass the Senate and install 15 appointees, including a union lawyer whose nomination to the National Labor Relations Board was blocked last month with the help of two Democrats. Coming on the heels of Mr. Obama’s big victory on health care legislation, Saturday’s move suggests a newly emboldened president who is unafraid to provoke a confrontation with the minority party.

  Priceless. :rolleyes:
• gibby08

  

  If Congress had done their damn jobs....he wouldn't have to do this
• CenterBHSFan

  

  gibby08 wrote: If Congress had done their damn jobs....he wouldn't have to do this

  So, Congress should just approve whoever a President nominates?
  And, why did he HAVE to do it? There are no other equally qualified people to nominate?
  
  *edit - I put "andy" instead of and LOL
• LJ

  

  CenterBHSFan wrote:

  gibby08 wrote: If Congress had done their damn jobs....he wouldn't have to do this

  So, Congress should just approve whoever a President nominates?
  Andy, why did he HAVE to do it? There are no other equally qualified people to nominate?

  There is actually some truth to "if they would have done their job". While there were attempts at blocking some of these appointees, it's been said that republicans voiced no opinion of others. So if you are indifferent, why not just approve them?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  RECESS APPOINTMENTS
  
  STATEMENT: Then-Senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005.
  
  EXPIRATION DATE: March 27, 2010: “If, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.”
  
  This from a list of broken promises compiled by the National Review.
  
  http://www.nationalreview.com/
• Prescott

  Don't you know that campaign promises are just for the campaign.
  
  Change We Can Believe In..
• CenterBHSFan

  

  LJ,
  
  Were they indifferent? I don't know...
  
  I get that it was a "show", however. I just can't help but wonder if there would have been a better response to at least some of those nominated if there was another choice presented.
• QuakerOats

  LJ wrote: There is actually some truth to "if they would have done their job". While there were attempts at blocking some of these appointees, it's been said that republicans voiced no opinion of others. So if you are indifferent, why not just approve them?

  Both dem's and repub's opposed this particular radical................... but the socialist has now appointed him anyway, once again undermining the will of THE PEOPLE.
  
  Change we can believe in .........................
• LJ

  

  QuakerOats wrote:

  LJ wrote: There is actually some truth to "if they would have done their job". While there were attempts at blocking some of these appointees, it's been said that republicans voiced no opinion of others. So if you are indifferent, why not just approve them?

  Both dem's and repub's opposed this particular radical................... but the socialist has now appointed him anyway, once again undermining the will of THE PEOPLE.
  
  Change we can believe in .........................

  I'm not talking about "this particular radical" I am talking about some of the other 77 nominees that they are holding their nuts on and some of the 15 that he is going to go ahead and appoint. I don't know about you, but I am not a fan of my government being inefficient for the sake of being inefficient.
• Footwedge

  Writerbuckeye wrote: RECESS APPOINTMENTS
  
  STATEMENT: Then-Senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005.
  
  EXPIRATION DATE: March 27, 2010: “If, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.”
  
  This from a list of broken promises compiled by the National Review.
  
  http://www.nationalreview.com/

  Why don't you use a neutral site when listing broken promises? Something like factcheck or politicofact?
  
  If I wanted to waste some time, I could compare and contrast the real facts with the twisted ones presented by tha National Review.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  lol...there's not a thing wrong with this site. It has the quotes DATED, for God's sake.
  
  If you want to dispute what Obama said, then find a DATED quote that says otherwise and cite it accordingly.
• Paladin

  Actually, Obama is merely moving on after TRYING to get bipartisanship in Congress only to have his hand slapped repeatedly. After the debacle of healthcare obstruction by the Rs lying thru their teeth and inciting violence, these recess appointments after having them endlessly held up is just the tip of the iceberg. The honeymoon is over and the Rs just proved they are not worth trying to work with. Take the mandate of the election and push aggressively on.
• jhay78

  

  Paladin wrote: Actually, Obama is merely moving on after TRYING to get bipartisanship in Congress only to have his hand slapped repeatedly. After the debacle of healthcare obstruction by the Rs lying thru their teeth and inciting violence, these recess appointments after having them endlessly held up is just the tip of the iceberg. The honeymoon is over and the Rs just proved they are not worth trying to work with. Take the mandate of the election and push aggressively on.

  He got bipartisanship alright- there was bipartisan opposition to both the stimulus bill and Obamacare. The debacle was the healthcare passage, not its attempted obstruction.
  
  By the way, Obama doesn't need the R's to work with to get things done- he has a majority in both Houses. His failure to "get things done" is because he's the most radical Prez in our history and some Dems who actually have a spine to stand up to their party leadership can't bring themselves to bow down to him.
• jhay78

  

  Footwedge wrote:

  Writerbuckeye wrote: RECESS APPOINTMENTS
  
  STATEMENT: Then-Senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005.
  
  EXPIRATION DATE: March 27, 2010: “If, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.”
  
  This from a list of broken promises compiled by the National Review.
  
  http://www.nationalreview.com/

  Why don't you use a neutral site when listing broken promises? Something like factcheck or politicofact?
  
  If I wanted to waste some time, I could compare and contrast the real facts with the twisted ones presented by tha National Review.

  Yeah because a dated quote is unfactual and twisted to suit someone's opinion.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  jhay78 wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:

  Writerbuckeye wrote: RECESS APPOINTMENTS
  
  STATEMENT: Then-Senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005.
  
  EXPIRATION DATE: March 27, 2010: “If, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.”
  
  This from a list of broken promises compiled by the National Review.
  
  http://www.nationalreview.com/

  Why don't you use a neutral site when listing broken promises? Something like factcheck or politicofact?
  
  If I wanted to waste some time, I could compare and contrast the real facts with the twisted ones presented by tha National Review.

  Yeah because a dated quote is unfactual and twisted to suit someone's opinion.

  My source was so bad that Hotair decided it was worthwhile to link it as part of their daily package of political stories.
• fish82

  

  Paladin wrote: Actually, Obama is merely moving on after TRYING to get bipartisanship in Congress only to have his hand slapped repeatedly. After the debacle of healthcare obstruction by the Rs lying thru their teeth and inciting violence, these recess appointments after having them endlessly held up is just the tip of the iceberg. The honeymoon is over and the Rs just proved they are not worth trying to work with. Take the mandate of the election and push aggressively on.

  Yes...please do that, Bam. I'm begging you.....
• Writerbuckeye

  

  fish82 wrote:

  Paladin wrote: Actually, Obama is merely moving on after TRYING to get bipartisanship in Congress only to have his hand slapped repeatedly. After the debacle of healthcare obstruction by the Rs lying thru their teeth and inciting violence, these recess appointments after having them endlessly held up is just the tip of the iceberg. The honeymoon is over and the Rs just proved they are not worth trying to work with. Take the mandate of the election and push aggressively on.

  Yes...please do that, Bam. I'm begging you.....

  And while you're at it, please, please, please link to these incidents of "incited violence" you and other libs keep talking about.
  
  I keep asking for links and never get any.
• Footwedge

  jhay78 wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:

  Writerbuckeye wrote: RECESS APPOINTMENTS
  
  STATEMENT: Then-Senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005.
  
  EXPIRATION DATE: March 27, 2010: “If, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.”
  
  This from a list of broken promises compiled by the National Review.
  
  http://www.nationalreview.com/

  Why don't you use a neutral site when listing broken promises? Something like factcheck or politicofact?
  
  If I wanted to waste some time, I could compare and contrast the real facts with the twisted ones presented by tha National Review.

  Yeah because a dated quote is unfactual and twisted to suit someone's opinion.

  Huh? I have no idea what you mean here. If one wants to list the unfulfilled promises by Obama, I don't think the majority of people will waste their time in reading a list "compiled by the National Review". Would you waste your time on a list "compiled by the DailyKos'???
  
  Why not post a source that is nonbiased that doesn't possess a political slant?
  
  It's really not that hard of a concept to internalize.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Why not refute the facts instead of attacking the source if you're so damn sure the information is wrong?
  
  Because it's not wrong, that's why.
• majorspark

  

  Writerbuckeye wrote: Why not refute the facts instead of attacking the source if you're so damn sure the information is wrong?
  
  Because it's not wrong, that's why.

  I agree. Give your opinion, site your source and if the the facts in the article cited are weak there should be no problem debunking it. I personally on rare occasion have read factual articles on Huff Po, Daily Kos, Media Matters. I admit I approach them with a grain of salt but don't dismiss them outright. I personally don't bow at the alter of self proclaimed fact sites. Just because they put the word "fact" in their web address does not give them a monopoly on the facts. I have a level head on my shoulders and can discern the difference between facts, lies and political opinion.
• fish82

  

  fish82 wrote:

  IggyPride00 wrote: Is anyone else amazed at the way Obama's presidency has risen from the dead (Hannity does call him the Messiah) the way it has?
  
  Scott Brown was supposed to be the 41st vote to kill off the Obama agenda, and instead all it has done is embolden him.
  
  Apathetic Democrats are now fired up and campaign contributions are pouring in now that HCR has passed.
  
  Could the anti-Obama momentum have peaked on the night Scott Brown won? Democrats are not depressed anymore, and off year elections are all about turnout. If he keeps giving liberals victories and gets them fired up to turn out this might not be the whitewash it would have had HCR not passed.
  
  I have been reading about how the White House likes the feeling right now having passed major legislation and defeated a determined opponent. They are now not scared to take them on again.
  
  What kind of damage can BHO do in another 8 months before elections with the wind at his back?

  Meh. He's had a good week. It's not like he wasn't due for one or anything.
  
  Obviously it's better for him that he got it passed, but I'd give it another couple weeks before I pronounce him on a roll.

  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35162.html
  
  As predicted. I should have my own frigging cable news show, I kid you not.