America Is Not Yet Lost

you can almost hear the tears in his voice as he writes that, can't you?

Personally, I would like to see the GOP Senators let Obama's appointments get votes, and agree to abolish the filibuster for judicial appointments.  Grab some high ground, and use it as part of a national campaign for 2010.

I'll start taking the Democrats/Republicans seriously in their obstructionism complaints when they remain consistent when the power changes hands instead of this constant thinly veiled sideshow of each party hating the tactics when it is used against them but embracing such tactics when it helps them. This game goes back as far as the Whig Party getting annoyed at the Democrats blocking one of their bank bills. I'm not holding my breath for an end to the hypocrisy.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

Pass...

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

How about this:

Republicans have mocked Reid's impatience in the Hamilton matter. Has Reid forgotten Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, Miguel Estrada, Terrence Boyle, and a number of other Bush administration appeals-court nominees who came before the Senate just a few years ago? Back then, the minority party -- Harry Reid's Democrats -- slowed them down, too. They waited years, not months.

Owen waited four years for confirmation. Brown waited two. Estrada waited three years before withdrawing his nomination. And Boyle waited nearly eight years before his hopes for the bench died with the end of the Bush administration -- blocked by Democrats until the very last.

When they were in the minority, the Democrats used the filibuster to stop 10 appeals-court nominees -- something no minority party had ever done before.

 

I don't care for it when someone posts a link with nothing else.

If the link is to something relatively concise and intelligently argued, it is ok with me. Those who subsequently respond here then start with common focus.

Five regular IP posters read the link and responded. Somewhat more probably read the link

Michael Fuerst       

Sorry, I guess there is a misunderstanding.  All of the examples given of Democratic filibustering are appointments to judicial courts of appeals.  Krugman wasn't talking about fillibusters, and neither was I:

Last week, after nine months, the Senate finally approved Martha Johnson to head the General Services Administration, which runs government buildings and purchases supplies. It’s an essentially nonpolitical position, and nobody questioned Ms. Johnson’s qualifications: she was approved by a vote of 94 to 2. But Senator Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, had put a “hold” on her appointment to pressure the government into approving a building project in Kansas City.

This dubious achievement may have inspired Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama. In any case, Mr. Shelby has now placed a hold on all outstanding Obama administration nominations — about 70 high-level government positions — until his state gets a tanker contract and a counterterrorism center.

Maybe nobody read the link after all?  So I'll go ahead and repeat my original question:

I'd love to see a series of examples of Democrats holding up the business of the Senate that are comparable to the stuff going on in D.C. these days.

Are there examples of Democrats placing "holds" on routine nominations for government positions during the Bush years?  Since that was the original claim:

... constant thinly veiled sideshow of each party hating the tactics when it is used against them but embracing such tactics when it helps them.

It wouldn't be the first time that an unsubstantiated claim was made only to be cleared up later.  I'll assume that's the case once again.

I can understand how the "hold" process could be used in moderation to get someone's attention and spur discussion.  Unless there is something I've missed, Shelby is using this to steer the huge  tanker contract to his state.  It is plain and simple extortion and it is wrong.

"Unfortunately (for ya'll) there don't seem to be any examples of Democratic Senators "holding" Bush nominations to government positions. Though, as I said above, there are a bunch of examples of judicial nominees being fillibustered by both parties over the last 30 years. But that's obviously not the same thing."

Do you consider appointments to the federal judiciary to be different than government positions?  Because otherwise, forgive me, but I don't see any difference.  (And I still think the filibuster or hold or whatever procedural block you want to use should be outlawed for appointments, so I think I'm on your side here.  I think.)

"I don't want to end up dead in a dumpster over some psycho obsessed over how I'm a secret Rovian minion. He's really starting to creep me the hell out."

Heh.  Just ignore them.  Hopefully with the upgrade I can allow users to block those they find most objectionable.

Do you consider appointments to the federal judiciary to be different than government positions?

Definitely.  The biggest difference is that judges serve for life terms and their nominations are routinely processed through confirmation hearings.  Appointing a judge to a federal position is a very, very serious manner which has long term impact on the future of the country.  While I don't really like filibustering judges, I understand it.

Government positions like head of the GSA are temporary positions and the people placed in these positions can be fairly easily removed from office if there is a problem.  There is rarely a hearing for this kind of position and the entire matter is typically left up to the president who, of course, is elected to run the executive branch.  I continue to struggle to find an instance of a political party "holding" these Senate approvals for political reasons.  I am sure it's been done before, but I can't find that information.  It certainly wasn't done during Bush's years.

You'll keep obsessing over me and I'll still remain disinterested.

Again, no big conspiracy, no big obsession.  You're just wrong and it needs to be pointed out.  Democrats do not "embrace such tactics" as holds for routine governmental appointments until they get their pork projects.

Just doin' my best to keep the facts straight.

They're all anonymous to me. I've had endless death threats from obsessed whackos over the years of helping administer political sites. It's the ones who want you to know who did it who worry me, even if it is a fake name. Part of the fun of the internet is having free discussion without worrying about someone going crazy right then and there... there's a level of protection against the whackjobs. But I've learned the hard way it is a very thin layer. I really don't want to have to start checking under my car again.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

Your obsession is creepy and I'm done. I'll just wait for the ignore feature to post again.

Your obsession is creepy and I'm done. I'll just wait for the ignore feature to post again.

Actually, you'd be better off waiting for the "fact check" and "perspective" features before you post again.

But at least we've established that in fact Democrats haven't used holds to delay governmental appointments.  We've learned something true here, if nothing else.

"But at least we've established that in fact Democrats haven't used holds to delay governmental appointments"

Huh?  Again, I don't see how you can consider a judgeship a nongovernmental appointment.

"That said, the Senate has traditionally held the view that there is a difference between a judge being appointed for life and an agency head being appointed for a few years. And that was the substance of the discussion: whether the GOP's latest tactics are equal to what the Dems have done in the past. I cannot find any examples of the Democrats using holds to block Republican agency heads for political or pork-related reasons."

OK, I get that.  I don't agree with the distinction, but I understand you're making it.  But above you actually state that the agency heads are less important than judiciary appointments, so I don't understand your condemnations that follow.  The GOP is actually worse for focusing on less important positions?  I don't get that.

"So you might be right that blocking any appointment is stupid and counterproductive. But, if anything, that means the GOP has taken this stupidity and counterproductivity to new depths."

Well, actually it means they're applying it to less important positions.  I don't know if that's an escalation per se, but if they were to continue the recent trend set by Democrats we'd be seeing them holding Supreme Court nominees, which (I think) has never been done before.   That would be escalation, IMO.  This is not quite the opposite of escalation because they're applying the stupidity to lower positions rather than higher ones - broadening, maybe?

The "escalation" may stem in part from the feeling (right or wrong) that the Republicans are now blocking absolutely everything, requiring a super-majority for the passage of any measure.  In that context, the blanket hold on all Presidential appointments can be interpreted as part of an ongoing escalation in both scale and scope.

I am seriously worried about the ability of Congress to do anything from now on.  I know that it is the duty of the minority party to protect their own principles and ideals, but when in the past have we ever consistently required 60 votes to conduct any and all business?  This precedent is quite alarming, particularly since I have no confidence in the ability or will of the Democrats to reverse it if and when they become the minority party again.

"Whose nomination to the SCOTUS did they put on hold?"

They haven't.  That's my point.  The Dems were the first to apply the hold/filibuster to appeals court nominees, and to judicial nominees with majority support.  If the GOP were to follow that trend of escalation, we would have seen the GOP try to hold or filibuster a SCOTUS nominee, but they did not.  Instead, they're picking their fights by holding/filibustering a slew of lower-level executive branch appointments.

Either way, it sucks when appointments are blocked from votes.  The President won the election, let him have a vote on his nominees.

"They were? Have you heard of Abe Fortas?"

Fortas' filibuster was bi-partisan.

"I'm sorry, but they really are worse than the Democrats have ever been. Again, I'd ask you or anyone to point me to a case of an executive branch nominee being held by a Democrat for political or pork reasons. Unless you can do that, in my opinion there is no comparison. This is a new depth of obstruction and it should be challenged, not rationalized, imo."

Of course you see it that way - you see all actions by Republicans as worse than the equivalent done by Democrats.

This really is a strange argument you're making though.  I keep saying that I think it sucks when either party blocks appointments, and you're saying that it sucks worse when Republicans do it because they're doing it to less important apopintees.

So it wasn't the Democrats who started the process it was Republicans and a few Democrats, so now it's bi-partisan.  And placing Senatorial holds on executive appointments, which was never done before, isn't really an escalation of the obstruction of the party in power it is a broadening.  And since they're less important appointees it shouldn't matter anyway?

Congratulations, you have me thoroughly confused.  Allow me to summarize before I sign off the thread:

1. Krugman made the claim that placing holds on agency heads is a new low in obstruction and reveals fundamental flaws in the Senatorial process.
2. Conservative commenters on this blog made the claim that this was the same thing Democrats have been doing for years so they should just shut up.  Somebody implied that I was dumb for even questioning the obviousness of this statement.
3. Upon further review, it turns out that the Democrats have never (as far as we can tell) placed a hold on an executive appointment.  Which obviously makes point #2 patently false and supports Krugman's original claims.

That's pretty much the beginning and end of my interest in this topic.  No, imo, Democrats and Republicans are not equal in obstructionist tactics.  Both parties routinely filibuster judicial nominees, but Democrats do it less often.  Democrats have not sunk to the level of placing holds on executive appointments for political and pork reasons.  And a Republican-led filibuster of President Johnson was the beginning of the modern era of filibustering judicial nominees.

It is not because I tilt to the Left in my politics.  These are the just the facts.  Republicans are much more likely to obstruct a Democratic president than vice-versa.  And the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.  Water is wet, the Pope is Catholic, and Bears do indeed poop in the woods.

Have a great day.

IP:  1) The escalation is quantitative.  Doing something to more things, doing something more often, is an escalation of quantity, regardless of qualitative comparisons.  The Republicans in this congress have done this more than any party previously, so it is an escalation in that sense.

2) Holds and filibusters are not the same.  While they may appear to have the same end result, there is a qualitative difference in both procedure and efficacy.  If nothing else, a hold only requires one senator, while a filibuster requires 41.  In that light, however, I don't think we can blame the Republicans as a whole for the greed of just one of their members.

3) I'm slightly amazed that this argument continues, given that everyone here apparently agrees that holds for pork and filibusters "just because" are unnecessary evils.  I'm less interested in who did it first than in seeing it stop once and for all.

"Republicans are poopy-heads for following the exact same pattern of escalation as the Democrats?  Again, I don't get it.  It still doesn't make any sense."

Actually, it makes perfect sense, but only if one acknowledges that the Democrats were also "poopy-heads" when they were doing it.

"Yet one is worse because they're doing the expanding now?"

I never said worse.  I said more.  If more is worse, then so be it, but that is not the point I was making.  Regardless of who is in the minority, to the extent that it prevents Congress from getting anything done, let alone serving the public good, it sucks both ways, and so do both parties in that regard.

I see holding up the Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislative agenda as much different from holding up appointments.  Cap and trade, mandatory health care with Nebraska and union carveouts, massive deficit expansions - these things need stopped, by any legal means.

In short, RSW has confirmed that it's only ok if his side does it, not when the other side does.

-----
Bars are not serving minors. - "B is for Business" on 2009-12-28 @ 7:29am

Let me fix that for you:

LC:  "Republicans are bad because they are escalating the use of the same tactics that noble and saintly Democrats escalated when they had the chance."

CB:  Huh?

There are currently more than 60 political nominees being held up by the Republican minority in the Senate -- at this point in the Bush Administration, only four nominees were still in limbo."

It doesn't matter.  Since at some point the Democrats held up some of the nominees there is absolutely, positively no difference at all.

This idea can also translate nicely to football.  In case you're not aware - the Chicago Bears just won the Super Bowl.  Sure the Saints won more games, scored more points, got the trophy, and had a parade.  But the Bears also play football.  And they won some games and scored some points this year.  There is absolutely, positively no difference at all - they're all champions!

"Republicans are bad because they are escalating the use of the same tactics that noble and saintly Democrats escalated when they had the chance."

But the Democrats haven't used the secret holds to block routine administrative appointments.  Please direct us to the source that proves they have.  I mean, there was no real resistance to Johnson taking over the GSA.  No ideological battle to fight, no skeletons in the closet to expose.  They just didn't want her confirmed because one of the Republican Senators wanted a pork project for his state.

I triple-double-dog dare you to find a parallel instance of this happening when Bush was president.  Please note the word parallel.  This doesn't mean a filibuster of a judge.  And it doesn't mean an ideological battle over a cabinet member (GSA head is not a cabinet level position).

If you can't do that, then you can't really say that it is all the same.  You'd have to (I assume) acknowledge that this is a new low, even for the Senate, which is exactly what Krugman was saying in the first place.

And we could have all saved ourselves a lot of time. 

It is, just as the Democrats used these same sorts of tactics to achieve new lows when they were in the minority under President Bush.  Again, you are criticizing the Republicans for escalating the use of the same tactics that Democrats escalated when they were in the minority.

Oh brother.  Look, one more time from the top: the Democrats have not used secret holds to delay the nomination of routine executive appointments.  It hasn't happened, or at least nobody on this blog can find an instance of it happening so ... wait for it ... they haven't used the same tactics.  This is actually a different tactic.  It is not the same, so it is different, ie: not the same, or different.

I am honestly at a loss for why this is so difficult for you to understand.  Your apparent willingness to suspend logic and common sense in order to blame the whole thing on the Democrats is more than a little stunning.

What part of this statement:  There are currently more than 60 political nominees being held up by the Republican minority in the Senate -- at this point in the Bush Administration, only four nominees were still in limbo are you failing to grasp?

I'd go with all of it.  I'm starting to think this has something to do with Tim Johnson.