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.
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.