Posted on 10/13/2005 12:59:46 AM PDT by paudio
WASHINGTON -- Senate confirmation of President Bush's choice to be U.S. ambassador to the European Union has been delayed for several weeks, and the nominee may not take his post until well into November. Bush's choice as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations is serving under a recess appointment and may never be confirmed. The reason: the individual whims of two Republican senators.
Freshman Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida last week temporarily blocked the confirmation of longtime Republican stalwart C. Boyden Gray to the EU for petty political reasons. Much more serious because its effect looks permanent, Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio at the same time stiffened his opposition to John Bolton at the United Nations. He apparently swallowed whole the Democratic campaign of personal destruction.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
President Bush's greatest failure is his inability to enforce party discipline. Nobody is afraid of him.
Could you imagine a rat politician crossing Clinton? He would fear the loss of his knee caps.
If you are looking for world-class pettiness, look no further than the U.S. Senate.
President Bush's greatest failure is he hasn't yet realized he won the last two elections, and the GOP is in majority
I don't recall that Republicans ever could. Someone on FR says the main reason is that individual Dems can't raise money, so depend more on the party. I've wondered if the Republican rules give individual senators more independence from the party than the Dem rules. For whatever reason, it's very hard to recall a time the Dems didn't do as they were bid.
.
One senator can't block an appointment. Just because he happens to be the swing vote, doesn't mean he's doing this single handedly. They need ten Senators on the committee to vote to pass him, not all ten Republican Senators.
Yes, it's a damn shame he does not have a box of FBI files huh! (sarc)
This complaint seems nothing more than another "knee jerk" opportunity to bash President Bush. The Senate is the REASON that what YOU want is not coming to light. Blame these self-important jerks in the Senate, if you must lay blame. NO PRESIDENT (including Ronaldo Magnus) could "control" the Senate! Some Republican Senators are more like FR Libertarians, than members of the party. Hard to tell the difference really.
TERM limits is the answer. TERM LIMITS!
LLS
Under the Senate rules one senator can block most appointments.
Y'all sound crazy. The whole POINT is to not have an overly powerful president. That's a big reason we HAVE a Senate. You ppl claim to be conservatives and yet don't even understand the basics. We're supposed to be for more state power, and yet, our state agents in the fed gov--our senators--are treated as an annoyance. Why not just abolish the Senate, then? For crying out loud. You sound like a bunch of babies.
You need a UC to bring the nomination to the floor for a vote, or to call up any bill..
,,,and as I have personally stated, and continue to proclaim and believe, the US Senate is the single most dangerous body of men and women on the face of the earth.
The amendment to the Constitution that allowed the senate to usurp the power to become what it has become, should be declared null, and void on the evidence alone.
Does anyone doubt that certain members of the Senate consider themselves the Rulers of this nation? From a single individual or as a group their power knows hardly any limits.
The only saving grace is very few of them go from the senate to President of the United States, and I think for very good reasons. Granted, there are a few good men, but how can one good man change the direction of such a group?
The "sense of the Senate" described as Nonsense, as they pondered the impeachment of WJC. Filibustering judicial appointees, once again senatorial "rules" trump the Constitution of the United States of America.
The foolishness and impertinence of the body knows no bounds. We await the next bit of senatorial quackery sure to make its appearance within short order.
You really should get some ice and put it on your sore spot. Considering these peronal attacks come from you, I'll wear them like a badge of honor. I despise you, and people that attack others that have legitimate, but opposing views on certain subjects.
You are NO better than the driveling, whining hoard of leftists!
LLS
Could you imagine a rat politician crossing Clinton? He would fear the loss of his knee caps."
Great observation.
The RINOs have pushed him around. He's not demonstrated much party leadership at all.
I despise you, and people that attack others that have legitimate, but opposing views on certain subjects.
Then does the thing he just complained about.
You are NO better than the driveling, whining hoard of leftists!
You're amusing.
Through a procedure known as a "hold," any individual Senator can block indefinitely any appointment for purportedly provincial, as opposed to political, reasons. Holds, under certain conditions, may be anonymous.
The Senate rejected Bolton by majority vote (54-38, with 38 constituting the majority, margin negative sixteen); in the Senate, a majority comprises 61 affirmative votes or however many negative votes may deny an affirmative majority. With a hold, by contrast, the Senate does not even consider the appointment until and unless the Senator placing the hold releases the nominee for placement on the calendar.
So, senators are the state agents in the fed gov are they. I contend that they are the destroyers of state power and the people gave them that right on a platter called the seventeenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Hardly anything would change if the senate was abolished, but that isn't what we are about. We want the senate doing state business, not looking out for the people. That is the business of the House of "Representatives". The senate has assumed its role over time, based on the seventeenth amendment.
PS, What ought to be abolished in the correct way, is the seventeenth amendment.
You're referring to the way they are elected, but I don't agree with you about their function. State business is to be conducted by STATE governments. That's why we have governors, and STATE legislatures, with STATE senators (whom most ppl can't even name.)
US Senators represent the states on NATIONAL matters, which is why they are in the US Senate, not their STATE senate. The system is designed to give most of the power--not unchecked power, but most power--to the Congress, which is both the Senate and the House, and as you know, they have to function together. And, I might add, here in NJ, I still see a big difference between the Senate and the House. My congressman, Scott Garrett, gets a 100% rating from the ACU. My senators are Corzine and Lautenberg. So there most definitely IS a difference, regardless of direct elections of senators.
But really, my main point is that the US Congress is where most US business--national business--should be conducted. It's not a nuisance. It's our primary government body, a direct descendant of the Continental Congress. The president? The framers weren't even certain that they even wanted one. So to me, it's a little bizarre to see conservatives clamoring for a stronger and stronger president. I understand why it happens. They want what they want, and a president with unchecked power would be a facile way to get it, but that's how abusive power accrues. You give it to "your" guy, thus setting the precedent for all who follow. I guess I need to lower my expectations even further about conservatism.
PPS, Then the Senate can get back to doing business as the founders intended, guarding states rights, not attempting to thwart the business of the House of Representatives, by being the assumed watch dog of the house.
I am not convinced that makes a big difference. You could be right. But in liberal NJ, we have liberal Senators, which, to my chagrin, probably makes sense. And yet, my county, Sussex county, has a congressman to the right of the president, which also makes sense. So I am not sure the system isn't working, as far as that goes.
"Y'all sound crazy."
Now that is a sure fire way to gain respect for one's argument.
"The whole POINT is to not have an overly powerful president."
Or an overly powerful Senate. You see, we are made up of three seperate but equal branches of government. The Senate holds no more esteem or power than the President, nor should they.
"That's a big reason we HAVE a Senate. You ppl claim to be conservatives and yet don't even understand the basics."
I have worked tirelessly for decades to get Conservatives elected to office. I have raised tens of thousands of dollars for candidates such as President Bush. I have attended town meetings, council meetings, visited the State Senate and Congress, as well as those bodies in our Federal system. I do not need the huckster to question my credentials like you have those of Miers.
As far as understanding... I have a degree in Political Science, do you?
"We're supposed to be for more state power, and yet, our state agents in the fed gov--our senators--are treated as an annoyance."
You obviously do NOT have Senator Lott as your Senator. He attacks Miers as not being the best qualified, but I can guarantee you that HE is NOT the most QUALIFIED individual to be my Senator. If we had term limits, we could change that. I refuse to vote for a dim, even if he or she is a Conservative dim. I will NOT ever vote for a dim, because to be a dim is to be a member of a party that hates America... unless they are in charge. Because Lott controls the machine and money, he will sit as king until he decides he has had enough.
"Why not just abolish the Senate, then? For crying out loud. You sound like a bunch of babies."
Speaking of babies, it is you that is crying for throwing out the "baby" with the bath water. I just want to change the Senate, not destroy it.
LLS
It's not just the Senate. The executive weilds massive amounts of undelegated powers. That should be opposed always, but as we see, party loyalty is such that it is celebrated by the party in power and their followers. Look at some on this thread, acting as if the Senate is an intolerable obstacle to presidential power. I am sure presidents feel that way about it, but to me, it's as it should be.
I think you may have missed the point. I wouldn't say Republicans are looking for a stronger president from an official standpoint, more in the nature of stronger Republican, or Conservative.
Stronger on the issues not stronger as in powerful position as President, although the case could probably be made that one begets the other, but that is what a house and senate are for as you stated.
My beef is with the Senate, who's power exceeds its mandate by a factor of ZOT squared.
I will read your full reply later when I get to work, but I do concede that the babies remark, and even the 'crazy' remark, were provacative and not the route to good dialog. I apologize and retract.
I have to go to work now. I'd like to pick this up, though. I love discussing the structure of the system. I'm a Madison wannabe.
You too, I've been avoiding the inevitable, have to travel out of town today and probably through tomorrow. Enjoyed the discourse.
Accepted and forgotten. Thank you.
LLS
I worked for a guy in Havana who was the Principal Officer at the U.S. Interests Section. He had been nominated by the State Department to be Ambassador to Nicaragua, but Sen. Jesse Helms blocked his Senate approval, and he ended up as Chief of Mission in Havana, which did NOT require Senate approval. This guy went on to become Ambassador to Angola and later to Zimbabwe. Now he's the "diplomat in residence" somewhere in the south.
"Siffened his oposition?" This big, bed-wetting cry-baby? He's had a temper tantrum, after having dried his tears! This POS "senator" certainly showed Al Queda what the US government is made of when he broke down in tears on the senate floor!
Mark
The amendment to the Constitution that allowed the senate to usurp the power to become what it has become, should be declared null, and void on the evidence alone.
Does anyone doubt that certain members of the Senate consider themselves the Rulers of this nation? From a single individual or as a group their power knows hardly any limits.
The only saving grace is very few of them go from the senate to President of the United States, and I think for very good reasons. Granted, there are a few good men, but how can one good man change the direction of such a group?
The "sense of the Senate" described as Nonsense, as they pondered the impeachment of WJC. Filibustering judicial appointees, once again senatorial "rules" trump the Constitution of the United States of America.
The foolishness and impertinence of the body knows no bounds. We await the next bit of senatorial quackery sure to make its appearance within short order.
WELL said! (and so finely written that I had to quote your entire post)
This is the second time the freshman Martinez has sandbagged the Prez.
I assure you these tactics will not work again when the GOP national and state powers-that-be try to pull the same stunt to eliminate Katherine Harris......and they will try, rest assured.
Leni
Yeah, one can. Under Senate rules one Senator can block an appointment-for as long as he wants, for whatever reason. And as a courteousy, the rest of the baboon troop goes along.
Just one more reason to boot them all out of office at the earliest opportunity. These swell-headed maniacs are all out of control. Vote "NO" to incumbents of any party stripe. We might just save our republic.
Hilarious!
I do. I don't think anyone who has to share power with 99 co-equals, not to mention the House of Representatives, the Executive branch, the judiciary, and the states can consider himself ruler of the nation.
But the Senate as a body SHOULD consider itself to weild a lot of power, because it does. And I'm just talking about the actual delegated powers. In my opinion, your anger is misplaced. If you ask me, the culprit is the political PARTIES, who enforce discipline in ALL branches, including the states.
Why don't the states rise up as a bloc and protest federal power? Because the states are run by agents of the party, and those parties best interests are not necessarily the country's best interests. The parties rule, not any branch of government, and that's why the branches all tolerate the ongoing usurpation of power--because all levels are in on the con.
Absolutely not.I have been quite consistant in my support of his foreign policies and in my criticism of his domestic weakness.
There are never any consequences for Republicans' stabbing him in the back, nor any defense against the rat slander.
He is just not a hardball politician, which is a darned shame.
Sure he is. He got the most votes. That's the criteria.
Using your skewed logic. when Miers gets enough votes to be confirmed, in your opinion (using your logic) she will have become the "most" qualified.
I think that you just like to argue. ;-)
LLS
Jesse Helms became known as "Senator No" because he would vehemently and relentlessly obstruct and defeat a variety of presidential appointments, by any means necessary.
Lott's got great hair, too.
Yep, his house was destroyed during Katrina, but his hair never moved!
LLS
lol!
Thanks, it's nice to be quoted, and from another cat lover too. Ours were siamese if you please. Haven't had one since clawed died a few years back. Had him for 22 years. Gee, that's longer than the kids were here.
YEA, but blocking Gray and Bolton is just ridiculous. In this case, I don't think these two senators a are thinking of the country, just throwing their weight around because they can..
Has Matinez forgotten his narrow victory margin?
The President campaigned for him in '04 and this is the 'thank you'!
Could you link to something that describes this procedure a little better? Obviously any senator can't block any appointment indefinitely, unless you can think of a reason the Democrats would have let any Bush appointee through.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.